Should Free Accounts Go

Good point. Interestingly, your sound argument contradicts what we were told by LL concerning how inventory works. Thanks for the correction.

In any case, this strengthens my argument that Ted's suggestion isn't technically feasible, even for no-mod objects.

It does? Are you confusing copying things *in* inventory (which just creates a link... your inventory is just a bunch of links... whether the object is moddable or not) and rezzing in world or editing a moddable object (which always creates a new instance of the asset, whether you're replacing it in inventory or not).

The core content that needs to be tracked and deleted to make this effective, though, is completely immutable: bitmap images, sound samples, gestures, and so on. These are never copied even if the asset holding them is changed. Once you upload a texture that original ID is never lost.

I think the best thing they could do it offer paid accounts an incentive for being a paid account other than owning land.. We know we can have our own little spot (Rented) without paying for premium membership. I know there have been many suggestions on what would make premium better such as cheaper uploads. This would be great but only really good for content creators.

To get new people they should give a 30 day trial membership like many other places out there do.. They have 30 days to get someone hooked. (Ok,ok Stop Laughin) to make them decide they want a paid account.

If they totally take away free accounts everyone might want to start packing up your toys for an alternate world.

I think you're right, thanks. It's a little more complicated, but no point going into it here.

yes, I was simplifying somewhat. There's slightly different rules for some assets, and I think things like calling cards are kind of pseudo-assets.

Pffft! I use a Yahoo account for SL

As for premiums, there should simply be more options. The free 512 tier is useless for someone who doesn't want to own mainland, give them something else like a higher stipend or free classifieds upto the value of x.

A higher stipend would do wonders I think... bring back the 400's and 500's

Oh I am sure I can get behind that But yes, improving what a Premium means may be a good idea for LL, even if it's not stipend.

Which is where banding together to form a real world organization with the aim to look for infringement, report it and handle the follow up - and if necessary sue a few people to set an example - comes into play.

Yes, it would require that a good many content creators sign up for it and would need to pay a monthly fee to fund it all, but if the effort is made and it turns out that there's just no interest in the content creating communitythan that speaks much louder than all the outrage.

LL can do a lot, consumers/residents can do a lot (if only by giving up privileges like the current ability to sell/transfer content at will) but what exactly are content creators prepared to do? You can't even argue that they're willing to file DMCAs because there are many who demand LL should just hire a few dozen people to proactively look for copied content so they doesn't have to bother with it.

To continue bad analogies: if you have a store in RL then you should certainly be able to count on the police to show up and write up shop lifters, troublemakers or whatever else you would need actual police for, but you certainly can't expect a permanently assigned police unit to look for shop lifters for you. Society simply does not benefit if everyone's taxes are spent to pay police for playing security guard in every store, there's better uses for them that have far more beneficial impact on the community.
It's your store, your income and your responsibility to catch shop lifters by paying for cameras and security guards, noone else's.
Customers for their part should be understanding and leave shopping bags and backpacks in lockers before coming in if asked to.

But the shopping bags and backpacks are surgically implanted and invisible!

And I don't mind leaving the bag at the door when I go into a shop. But I dislike having bags forbidden when I am not in the shop, but back in my own home.

This!

This will never work and I have simply no reason to go premium and Ive been here 2 years and highly active, I do have paypal on file so I can get my lindens and buy things the content creators make, But I have no reason for a laggy mainland plot and a 300L stipend. maybe if they start throwing 10k L$ out a week and a free island then yeah I might bite. but as it stands right now there is no benefit to me with being premium.

Dear God, could you not have come up with an analogy that *doesn't* elicit such strong feelings of hate and resentment? Like Mexican drug cartels, perhaps?

Like I said: bad analogies .

The moral was that everyone does their part:
- the police would amount to LL who swiftly responds to DMCAs when notified
- the content creator has the burden to find infringing content, file and follow up on the DMCA or escalate the incident to a RL court room if need be
- consumers/residents as a whole might need to give some up privileges that has been taken for granted in order to deter content theft (ie removing the ability to transfer avie-to-avie at will)

Well, in that case I will have to unfortunately leave SL, as I cannot abide by this. So I hope the content creators enjoy their emptier shops and fewer infringement issues. I am sure I am not the only one.

that's not checking your shopping bags at the door.

That's being strip-searched by zombie nuns with bad acne every time you leave your yard.

And if you tell me that's a bad analogy, I'll just have to ask you, have you ever been strip-searched by zombie nuns? Have you, huh?

That's certainly true, and many (if not most) of the instances of that ripped texture or sculpt will have been used in perfect innocence by the creator of the item that incorporates them.

I know that if LL imposed the burden of PROVING the origin of every texture, sculpt, script, sound, animation, gesture, and what-all in my Inventory, before I could use them in a for-sale item, then I'd do what 99.99999% of all content creators in SL would likely do: quit. It would be an impossible task.

(Of course it would also be a business opportunity for some: Content Detectives at your service! For a nice healthy fee, of course...)

But anyway, back to the idea you were responding to (about LL deleting content that had been proved to be ripped)--clearly it would have to be restricted to 'entire item ripped' cases, such as RH Engel described in the "Now what do I do?" thread on this page. It might be an arbitrary dividing line, but such a line would be the only way to prevent mass chaos.

Should Argent Stonecutter's account go?

I have a landmark for that...

I hope not!

Although I guess if I had been then I'd probably suppress it deep deep down until I forgot it ever happened so I guess I can't be all that sure .

That sounds smart to me. (And LL wouldn't like having a page on their site that even referred to such a phenomenon as stolen content, so your notecard idea has a greater chance of being implemented. ..^_~)

Oh, God no! He's too cute!

You know... I'm not entirely sure they weren't zombies...

I wanted to reply to a post addressed to me in this thread, but don't want to humiliate the person who wrote it, so will substitute "poster" for the avatar-name. (I'll address that person as "you" for clarity.)

Also, fair warning: though this post concerns the topic of the thread, it's on a 'Principles of Logic and Argumentation' tangent.

The poster was referring to my post:


......................................................................................
......................................................................................



Well, no, it isn't.

For me to have committed "Straw Man," I would have to have attributed to you some argument you didn't really make, or some position you haven't actually espoused.

But as can be seen from my post, about which you make the false accusation of "Straw Man", there is no instance of my having attributed to you an argument or position that you didn't actually hold or express.

So, no "Straw Man."







All this refers to my post #126, in which I wrote:







The accusation that this post constitutes an Ad Hominem attack is not supported by the content of the post itself.

The example that is claimed to be analogous to my post,

"Originally Posted by fallacyfile.net: "My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business." (Circumstantial)"....

...is not analogous and not pertinent.

This is because the example consists of a statement of prediction of what an individual will certainly do (oppose the fluoridating of water). It is fallacious because the speaker is drawing unjustified conclusions from his premises (though his premises may be true, to wit, the fluoridating of water could affect the amount of business that dentists get.)

My post, by contrast, contains no conclusions about what any particular person or persons will certainly do.

Your example WOULD have been analogous and pertinent, and I WOULD have been committing the ad hominem fallacy, had I written anything like 'Since Resident A posted in opposition to changes to the current anyone-can-transfer-objects-for-Linden Dollars policy, that means Resident A is a thief.' But of course I didn't write that (because I don't believe it.)




I believe you are confused, here. In this thread, we are not engaged in an exercise in syllogistic logic. We are engaged in a discussion of policy. To exclude considerations of human conduct and motivations from policy discussions is purest folly.